https://thehill.com/regulation/court...olving-climate
...
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal involving a prominent climate scientist who sued an iconic conservative magazine and libertarian think tank for defamation. In a closely watched request to the Supreme Court, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute asked the justices to intervene in a suit brought against them by scientist Michael Mann. The case, which pits climate scientists against the free speech rights of global warming skeptics, drew interest from lawmakers, interest groups, academics and media.
...
He later came under fire from skeptics after leaked emails with colleagues fueled accusations of misconduct, in a controversy dubbed “Climategate.” But Mann was ultimately cleared by multiple investigations, including a 2010 review by his employer, Penn State University.
The National Review questioned the university’s findings, however. The magazine accused the school of a whitewash, and Mann of scientific fraud. Writers likened Mann to “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” a reference to the then-recently convicted serial pedophile and former football coach at Penn State.
“Instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,” Mark Steyn wrote for the magazine, quoting the work of a blogger at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, another party to the suit.
----
This lawsuit against Mann's libellers has been dragging on and on for years. This case is important as it has been a key part of climate change denialists' claims climate change is a scientific fraud foisted on the world by lying climate scientists. They have been using the courts to derail Mann's lawsuit and now that has come to an end and that lawsuit may now proceed.
Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph has been repeatedly demonstrated to be no hoax, or false, and has been repeatedly shown to be factual. This is year 10 of this lawsuit.
...
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up an appeal involving a prominent climate scientist who sued an iconic conservative magazine and libertarian think tank for defamation. In a closely watched request to the Supreme Court, the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute asked the justices to intervene in a suit brought against them by scientist Michael Mann. The case, which pits climate scientists against the free speech rights of global warming skeptics, drew interest from lawmakers, interest groups, academics and media.
...
He later came under fire from skeptics after leaked emails with colleagues fueled accusations of misconduct, in a controversy dubbed “Climategate.” But Mann was ultimately cleared by multiple investigations, including a 2010 review by his employer, Penn State University.
The National Review questioned the university’s findings, however. The magazine accused the school of a whitewash, and Mann of scientific fraud. Writers likened Mann to “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” a reference to the then-recently convicted serial pedophile and former football coach at Penn State.
“Instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,” Mark Steyn wrote for the magazine, quoting the work of a blogger at the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, another party to the suit.
----
This lawsuit against Mann's libellers has been dragging on and on for years. This case is important as it has been a key part of climate change denialists' claims climate change is a scientific fraud foisted on the world by lying climate scientists. They have been using the courts to derail Mann's lawsuit and now that has come to an end and that lawsuit may now proceed.
Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph has been repeatedly demonstrated to be no hoax, or false, and has been repeatedly shown to be factual. This is year 10 of this lawsuit.
I am a sovereign citizen of the Multiverse, and I vote!
